Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context the agent cannot get elsewhere: this is a paid call costing 1 credit, which should factor into invocation decisions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the question the tool answers, then the cost. Nothing is padded, though the extreme brevity means some essential call guidance is simply absent rather than compressed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without address formatting rules or chain-selection guidance, and does not say what happens for wallets absent from the list.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about either parameter. The 'chain' enum's seven values (btc, eth, trx, ltc, sol, xmr, dash) and the expected address format are undocumented in the text, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (wallet) and the specific check performed (membership on Bewary's scam list), which is more precise than the bare name 'lookup_wallet'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but the sibling names cover obviously distinct resources (domain, email, IP), so mis-selection risk is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites such as address format or supported chains. The interrogative phrasing implies a screening use case but leaves the agent to infer it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.